[Bug 977141] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-init - Generate project scaffolding from a template
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977141 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1057505 Flags|needinfo?(mr.marcelo.barbos | |a...@gmail.com)| |needinfo?(zbys...@in.waw.pl | |) | --- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek --- I somehow thought that comment #7 was only about /usr/bin/env, and completely missed the updated spec. Sorry. Everything seems to be fixed, but it now seems to depend on newer async package. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057505 [Bug 1057505] nodejs-async-0.2.10 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074268] Review Request: perl-Hijk - Specialized HTTP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074268 David Dick changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from David Dick --- yeah, this is my first review. :) i've thought about the licensing issue. I think it's safe to use the license link on http://search.cpan.org/~avar/Hijk-0.12/, which points to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php as the "source file" for the license. to finish the review, put the content of this file, namely - The MIT License (MIT) Copyright (c) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. -- into a file called LICENSE.txt (or equivalent) and then you can release it. package APPROVED! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076740] Review Request: ghc-newtype - A typeclass and set of functions for working with newtypes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076740 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|medium |low Severity|medium |low --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen --- (lowered priority since no longer needed for constraints -> lens) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064995] Review Request: perl-File-Slurp-Tiny - A simple, sane and efficient file slurper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064995 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003- ||3.fc21 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-17 02:23:00 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059942] Review Request: ghc-network - Network library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059942 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|high|medium -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069797] Review Request: perl-Module-Extract-Namespaces - Extract the package declarations from a module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069797 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||perl-Module-Extract-Namespa ||ces-1.02-3.fc21 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-17 02:22:16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064995] Review Request: perl-File-Slurp-Tiny - A simple, sane and efficient file slurper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064995 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System --- perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1064995] Review Request: perl-File-Slurp-Tiny - A simple, sane and efficient file slurper
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064995 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069797] Review Request: perl-Module-Extract-Namespaces - Extract the package declarations from a module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069797 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Module-Extract-Namespaces-1.02-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 872783] Review Request: Ray - Parallel genome assemblies for parallel DNA sequencing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=872783 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|Ray-2.1.0-6.el6 |Ray-2.3.1-3.el6 --- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System --- Ray-2.3.1-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 620042] Review Request: dvdbackup - Command line tool for ripping video DVDs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=620042 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|dvdbackup-0.4.1-1.fc14 |dvdbackup-0.4.2-1.el6 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- dvdbackup-0.4.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063140] Review Request: tofrodos - Converts text files between MSDOS and Unix file formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063140 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|tofrodos-1.7.13-2.fc19 |tofrodos-1.7.13-2.el6 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- tofrodos-1.7.13-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074531] Review Request: mod_jk - Tomcat-Apache plug-in that handles the communication between Tomcat and Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074531 Kenjiro Nakayama changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-03-17 01:29:59 --- Comment #2 from Kenjiro Nakayama --- (In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #1) Hmm... I reconsidered and I agree with you. I close this request. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074147] Review Request: apt-cacher-ng - Caching proxy for package files from Debian
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074147 --- Comment #10 from Kenjiro Nakayama --- (In reply to Kenjiro Nakayama from comment #9) > OK, I will file an fpc ticket soon. I submitted fpc ticket. [1] [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/407 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858084] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebKit component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858084 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mingw-qt5-qtwebkit-5.2.1-2. |mingw-qt5-qtwebkit-5.2.1-2. |fc19|fc20 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-qt5-qtwebkit-5.2.1-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 858084] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtwebkit - Qt5 for Windows - QtWebKit component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858084 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mingw-qt5-qtwebkit-5.2.1-2. ||fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-03-16 23:51:51 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-qt5-qtwebkit-5.2.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076863] Review Request: cmockery2 - Lightweight C unit testing framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863 --- Comment #8 from Luis Pabon --- For some reason, GitHub is not updating the raw version of the Spec file. Here is the normal view to the spec file: https://github.com/lpabon/fedora/blob/master/cmockery2/1.3.4/cmockery2.spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1066346] Review Request: ghc-HTTP - A library for client-side HTTP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066346 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059942] Review Request: ghc-network - Network library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059942 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen --- Thank you for reviewing! Package Change Request == Package Name: ghc-network New Branches: f20 f19 epel7 Owners: petersen InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1077030] New: Review Request: python-semantic-version - library implementing SemVer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077030 Bug ID: 1077030 Summary: Review Request: python-semantic-version - library implementing SemVer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mhriv...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org This is my first package submission, so I need a sponsor. Spec URL: http://mhrivnak.fedorapeople.org/python-semantic-version.spec SRPM URL: http://mhrivnak.fedorapeople.org/python-semantic-version-2.3.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This small python library provides a few tools to handle SemVer (http://semver.org) in Python. It follows strictly the 2.0.0 version of the SemVer scheme. Fedora Account System Username: mhrivnak F20: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6639178 F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6639176 It also builds successfully in el6, and I will want to get it into EPEL6. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076863] Review Request: cmockery2 - Lightweight C unit testing framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863 --- Comment #7 from Luis Pabon --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #6) > 1. Fedora discourages using static libraries(although, we can't avoid using > it somtimes), I hope you can remove that subpackage, but since you are the > upstream, I want to listen to your opinion. Do they really useful for Fedora? No problem. I really cannot think of a situation where it is absolutely required. I removed it from the .spec file. > 2. Parallel make? > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make Fixed. > > 3. -devel package: > > Group: Development/Tools > > ??? Are you sure ??? This package is very similar to libcmocka, and I based cmockery2's group on what they use which is Development/Tools. It does make sense, since this package is a tool for C developers. New updated packages available: SRPM and specfile update here: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lpabon/fedora/master/cmockery2/1.3.4/cmockery2.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/lpabon/fedora/raw/master/cmockery2/1.3.4/cmockery2-1.3.4-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076863] Review Request: cmockery2 - Lightweight C unit testing framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cicku...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng --- 1. Fedora discourages using static libraries(although, we can't avoid using it somtimes), I hope you can remove that subpackage, but since you are the upstream, I want to listen to your opinion. Do they really useful for Fedora? 2. Parallel make? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make 3. -devel package: Group: Development/Tools ??? Are you sure ??? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059942] Review Request: ghc-network - Network library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059942
Ricky Elrod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Ricky Elrod ---
Package APPROVED.
Name conflict will be resolved when this is un-subpackaged from
haskell-platform.
Review follows:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[
[Bug 1076463] Review Request: playitagainsam - Record and replay interactive terminal sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076463 --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng --- Version tag is completely wrong. It *does* have a versioned tarball: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/playitagainsam/ Note that after Fedora 22 please don't forget to rebuild it against python 3. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076463] Review Request: playitagainsam - Record and replay interactive terminal sessions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076463
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
Flags|fedora-review+ |
--- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng ---
I have to clean your review flag because of these errors:
%{!?python_sitelib: %define python_sitelib %(%{__python} -c "from
distutils.sysconfig import get_python_lib; print get_python_lib()")}
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
%{__python}
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%clean
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{python_sitelib}
Version:%{commit}
* Fri Mar 14 2014 Kushal Das
708a6662e9928f4d50c5a8c7ee8711367eb040f4-1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076916] Review Request: git-cal - GitHub-like contributions calendar on terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076916 --- Comment #2 from Ricky Elrod --- Thanks, fixed those. :) Spec URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/git-cal/git-cal.spec SRPM URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/git-cal/git-cal-0.9.1-2.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076863] Review Request: cmockery2 - Lightweight C unit testing framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863 --- Comment #5 from Luis Pabon --- Updated docdir according to Christopher Meng's comment. New files available here: SRPM and specfile update here: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lpabon/fedora/master/cmockery2/1.3.4/cmockery2.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/lpabon/fedora/raw/master/cmockery2/1.3.4/cmockery2-1.3.4-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076260] Review Request: libykneomgr - Yubico YubiKey NEO Manager C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076260
--- Comment #6 from Christopher Meng ---
%{_mandir}/man1/ykneomgr.1.gz
-->
%{_mandir}/man1/ykneomgr.1*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076863] Review Request: cmockery2 - Lightweight C unit testing framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863
--- Comment #4 from Luis Pabon ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3)
> %{_prefix}/share/doc --》 %{_docdir}
>
> Reason for keeping static libraries?
I am just providing them just in case someone may want them, but I can remove
it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076916] Review Request: git-cal - GitHub-like contributions calendar on terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076916
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
1. git-cal is a simple script to view commits calendar (similar to github
contributions calendar) on command line
Missing "." at the end.
2. perl Makefile.PL DESTDIR=%{buildroot} PREFIX=%{_prefix} NO_PACKLIST=1
make
These should be moved to %build.
3. /usr/share/man/man1/%{name}.1.*
-->
%{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1.*
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076741] Review Request: ghc-constraints - Constraint manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076741 Ricky Elrod changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed||2014-03-16 22:49:43 --- Comment #1 from Ricky Elrod --- Lens no longer requires this apparently ;). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1059942] Review Request: ghc-network - Network library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059942 Ricky Elrod changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rel...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rel...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076863] Review Request: cmockery2 - Lightweight C unit testing framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng ---
%{_prefix}/share/doc --》 %{_docdir}
Reason for keeping static libraries?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075595] Review Request: ghc-transformers-compat - A compatibility shim exposing the new types from transformers 0.3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075595 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rel...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(rel...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen --- I am happy to review this: we discussed with the author about allowing revdeps to depend instead on transformers-0.3 but he felt it is still too early for the whole Haskell library eco-system (he will probably wait after HP 2014.4). However I think (untested;) it should be trivial to patch contravariant, distributive, exceptions, etc to depend on transformers instead of this compat package. How do you think? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075605] Review Request: ghc-distributive - Haskell 98 Distributive functors -- Dual to Traversable
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075605 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075598] Review Request: ghc-contravariant - Contravariant functors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075598 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1075601] Review Request: ghc-exceptions - Extensible optionally-pure exceptions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1075601 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076741] Review Request: ghc-constraints - Constraint manipulation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076741 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069453] Review Request: ghc-nats - Haskell 98 natural numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069453 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen --- Thanks for the review New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-nats Short Description: Haskell 98 natural numbers Owners: petersen codeblock Branches: f20 f19 el6 epel7 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076863] Review Request: cmockery2 - Lightweight C unit testing framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863 Luis Pabon changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(lpa...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #2 from Luis Pabon --- Yes, the spec file will also be used for EL5. If this causes an issue, then I can have a spec file for EL6+/Fedora and one for EL5. Here is the output of rpmlint: cmockery2-1.3.4-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm - cmockery2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Cmockery -> Mockery, C mockery, Crockery cmockery2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cmockery -> mockery, crockery, c mockery cmockery2.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcmockery.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. cmockery2-debuginfo-1.3.4-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm - cmockery2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/cmockery2-1.3.4/src/cmockery.c cmockery2-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/cmockery2-1.3.4/src/cmockery/cmockery.h 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. cmockery2-devel-1.3.4-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm - cmockery2-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Cmockery -> Mockery, C mockery, Crockery cmockery2-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. cmockery2-static-1.3.4-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm - cmockery2-static.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Cmockery -> Mockery, C mockery, Crockery cmockery2-static.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. SRPM and specfile update here: Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lpabon/fedora/master/cmockery2/1.3.4/cmockery2.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/lpabon/fedora/raw/master/cmockery2/1.3.4/cmockery2-1.3.4-1.fc19.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076260] Review Request: libykneomgr - Yubico YubiKey NEO Manager C Library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076260
--- Comment #5 from Nick Bebout ---
Updated to GPLv3+ which is compatible with all the licenses involved. LGPL is
a more permissive license than GPL so any code licensed under LGPL may be
combined with GPL and released as a whole under GPL.
I added %{name} and %{version} to URL and Source0 and don't intend to use it
any other places. I checked the packaging guidelines and the MUST for using
directory macros is only for libdir and suggested for bindir, etc. It is not
required to use %{name} and %{version}, etc.
Same URLS for the SRPM and SPEC
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076192] Review Request: python-bitmath - Aids representing and manipulating sizes in various prefix notations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076192 --- Comment #5 from Tim Bielawa --- Spec URL: http://lnx.cx/~tbielawa/python-bitmath/python-bitmath.spec SRPM URL: http://lnx.cx/~tbielawa/python-bitmath/python-bitmath-1.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: bitmath simplifies many facets of interacting with file sizes in various units. Examples include: converting between SI and NIST prefix units (GiB to kB), converting between units of the same type (SI to SI, or NIST to NIST), basic arithmetic operations (subtracting 42KiB from 50GiB), and rich comparison operations (1024 Bytes == 1KiB). In addition to the conversion and math operations, bitmath provides human readable representations of values which are suitable for use in interactive shells as well as larger scripts and applications. Fedora Account System Username: tbielawa Noticed issue with macro expansion in the changelog. Updated to 1.0.3-1 with fixes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 998047] Review Request: python-backports - Namespace for backported Python features
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=998047 Nick Bebout changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-03-16 21:10:51 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076976] New: Review Request: rubygem-settingslogic - Simple settings solution for Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076976 Bug ID: 1076976 Summary: Review Request: rubygem-settingslogic - Simple settings solution for Ruby Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: val...@civ.zcu.cz QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-settingslogic-2.0.9-1/rubygem-settingslogic.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-settingslogic-2.0.9-1/rubygem-settingslogic-2.0.9-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Settingslogic is a simple configuration and settings solution that uses an ERB enabled YAML file. Settingslogic works with Rails, Sinatra, or any Ruby project. Fedora Account System Username: valtri koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6638805 I would like to package rOCCI for Fedora (Ruby Framework OCCI). This gem is dependency for rOCCI-core (https://github.com/EGI-FCTF/rOCCI-core). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1058038] Review Request: systeminfo - simple utility for viewing HW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058038 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1074595 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074595 [Bug 1074595] Review Request: systeminfo - simple utility for viewing HW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074595] Review Request: systeminfo - simple utility for viewing HW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074595 Michael Schwendt changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1058038 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058038 [Bug 1058038] Review Request: systeminfo - simple utility for viewing HW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1050805] Review Request: glyphicons-halflings-fonts - Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1050805 Pete Travis changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Pete Travis --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: glyphicons-halflings-fonts Short Description: Precisely prepared monochromatic icons and symbols Owners: immanetize Branches: f19 f20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076863] Review Request: cmockery2 - Lightweight C unit testing framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863
Niels de Vos changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lpa...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(lpa...@redhat.com
||)
--- Comment #1 from Niels de Vos ---
After improving your package with the hints and suggestions given below, please
run your new packages and spec file through rpmlint to verify the changes.
Include the output from rpmlint in your comment when you inform me of an
updated src.rpm and spec file.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Needs clarification
-> = suggested action to take
Q: = question you need to answer
Issues:
===
- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
-> Put the libcmockery2.so file in the -devel subpackage.
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: These BR are not needed: gcc make
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
-> gcc and make are always installed in the buildroot, please remove them
from the BuildRequires.
- ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in cmockery2
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries
-> Your package caries lib*.so* files, you need to execute ldconfig in %post
and %postun.
- Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
Note: cmockery2-devel : /usr/lib/libcmockery.la
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
-> Please prevent building the .la file, or delete the file after
compilation. If this really is needed (I don't think it is) for static
compilation, include it in the -static package.
- The Source0 url is invalid.
-> use
https://github.com/lpabon/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- The summary text for the package description should no end in a '.'.
-> Remove the . at the end of the Summary lines.
- There is no version on the last entry in the %changelog.
-> Please add a - in the changelog.
- The %clean section is only needed for EPEL-5 packages.
Q: Are you planning to provide this package in EPEL-5?
- Invalid BuildRoot is used.
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
-> If you want to provide the package in EPEL-5, set the BuildRoot to one of
the variants from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#BuildRoot_tag
- Subpackages -devel and -static are missing a versioned dependency on the
main package.
-> Add "Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}" in
cmockery2-devel and cmockery2-static.
- The package contains obsolete autotools m4 macros.
See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
Q: Can be dropped, or are they required for EPEL-5?
- -devel contains unneeded files.
-> NEWS is empty, and INSTALL does not contain any useful information. These
files should not get installed.
Accepted warnings:
==
- Spelling errors for 'Cmockery' and 'executables'.
- exit() call in libcmockery.so in cmockery.c:exit_test().
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or
generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /srv/devel/fedora-
pkgs/cmockery2.bz1076863/1076863-cmockery2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package
[Bug 1076863] Review Request: cmockery2 - Lightweight C unit testing framework.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076863 Niels de Vos changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nde...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 923574] Review Request: ghc-cipher-aes - Fast AES cipher implementation with advanced mode of operations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923574 Sébastien Willmann changed: What|Removed |Added CC||sebastien.willm...@gmail.co ||m --- Comment #2 from Sébastien Willmann --- ghc-crypto-cipher-types is available now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1069453] Review Request: ghc-nats - Haskell 98 natural numbers
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1069453
Ricky Elrod changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Ricky Elrod ---
Package APPROVED. Review follows.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 21 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that th
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #8 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Hi, I had modified the spec as per the suggestion: SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify.spec SRPM:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-4.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063040] Review Request: rubygem-em-socksify - Transparent proxy support for any EventMachine protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063040 --- Comment #7 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Hi, I had modified the spec as per the suggestion: SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-socksify.spec SRPM:niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-em-socksify-0.3.0-4.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1076916] New: Review Request: git-cal - GitHub-like contributions calendar on terminal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076916 Bug ID: 1076916 Summary: Review Request: git-cal - GitHub-like contributions calendar on terminal Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rel...@redhat.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/git-cal/git-cal.spec SRPM URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/git-cal/git-cal-0.9.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: git-cal is a simple script to view commits calendar (similar to github contributions calendar) on command line Fedora Account System Username: codeblock -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063047] Review Request: rubygem-em-websocket-client - A WebSocket client implementation for EventMachine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063047 --- Comment #7 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Hi, I had modified the spec as per the suggestions: SPEC:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-em-websocket-client.spec SRPMS:niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-websocket-1.1.2-3.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1063038] Review Request: rubygem-cookiejar - The Ruby CookieJar is a library to help manage client-side cookies in pure Ruby
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1063038 --- Comment #6 from Nitesh Narayan Lal --- Hi, I had modified the spec as per the suggestions: SPECS:http://niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/rubygem-cookiejar.spec SRPM:niteshnarayan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/rubygem-cookiejar-0.3.1-3.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074651] Review Request: xcb-util-cursor - Cursor library on top of libxcb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074651 Thomas Moschny changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xcb-util-cursor Short Description: Cursor library on top of libxcb Owners: thm Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074268] Review Request: perl-Hijk - Specialized HTTP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074268 --- Comment #7 from Emmanuel Seyman --- David, is there a reason you cleared the fedora-review flag? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074268] Review Request: perl-Hijk - Specialized HTTP client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074268 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Emmanuel Seyman --- Thanks, David. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: perl-Hijk Short Description: Specialized HTTP client Owners: eseyman Branches: f20 InitialCC: perl-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074418] Review Request: nodejs-superagent - A small, progressive client-side HTTP request library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074418 Jamie Nguyen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Jamie Nguyen --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-superagent Short Description: A small, progressive client-side HTTP request library Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1074418] Review Request: nodejs-superagent - A small, progressive client-side HTTP request library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1074418 --- Comment #16 from Jamie Nguyen --- Thanks very much for the review Mukundan! :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
